Click the image above to read the full story
I know it’s hot playing in the Arizona sun but I can’t stand 3200 ISO. Packard Stadium has much dimmer light compared to ASU’s Farrington Stadium. As a photographer, I would never use 3200, unless I sought grain as an artistic method. As a photojournalist, ISO 3200 is OK. Certainly not ideal for anything printed, but is suitable for web viewing.
These were shot with a Nikon D300s and a 70-200 2.8 VRII at f/2.8 ISO 3200 and around 1/320 1/400. With such a small aperture and long focal length (400mm would be ideal) motion doesn’t really stop at 1/250 with highly distorting grain. Because of the fast aperture the depth of field is small, and is subsequently lost in the high grain. Most sports need something higher than 1/250 anyway. It takes 1/8000 to stop a baseball from a pitcher! They are going around 100 mph.
There are, however other cameras that can handle higher ISOs. All of them are digital, no film, (no reprocity failure either) but the D ƒ, D4, D3, and D7000 are certainly better equipped as far as sensors and firmware. I did some research you can see below the differences. Click the image to read Ken Rockwell’s analysis.
I get a lot of information from Ken Rockwell’s website and I recommend it to anyone. He is very methodical, accurate, and like a true photographer he shows the science to prove it. I’ve sent him a donation, he uses it to feed his kids!
His conclusion was that the D7000 and D3 were the best. I think I would prefer the D3. The D7000 is the cleanest, as Ken Rockwell stated, however I think my shooting style would better suit a softer texture. He did point out the D300 paints over subject texture at high ISOs more than the D3 and D700, which is something I have certainly noticed over the years with my D300s. (the s stands for the updated model, changes are only internal, so it could be better) The feature is not a bad idea but I would like to control it, I’d make it look like something between the D7000 and D3.